I think the folks who did this were wrong, for exactly the reason you pointed out: innocent until proven guilty. Though I am a strong supporter of judicial "creative sentencing"; unfortunately, judges who undertake that here in the States are frequently made mockery of in the press.

I think jail time is pointless in a lot of cases -- hell, in some communities it's considered a badge of honor. But take those same people and make them do something beneficial to society in a humiliating way? That'd have more impact that jail.

I'm also a supporter of monetary penalties instead of jail time. Yes, it allows the wealthy to "buy their way out of jail", but if the monetary fine is hefty enough, punishment is satisfied. Say someone with a very good job, upper 5% of income earners -- $150,000 a year, commits a non-violent crime and doesn't present a danger to others. If you put that person in prison, he may be the sole support of his family, so they're punished too, and tax dollars are spent to support him -- I say put him on house-arrest aside from work, let him keep earning, and take 50% of his income for twice the number of years someone would be jailed. More if he's single.